Analysis of Misperception in U.S. Foreign Policy Toward Iran: Roots and Legal and Political Consequences.

Abstract

This research investigates the roots and legal political consequences of misperception in the United States' foreign policy concerning Iran, using Robert Jervis's theoretical framework and Max Weber's Verstehen (interpretive) method. The main question of the article is: What are the most important instances of U.S. misperception toward Iran, and what consequences have these misperceptions had for bilateral and regional relations? Through a qualitative analysis of official documents, speeches, and secondary sources (2013-2023), the findings indicate that misperceptions such as ignoring the identity based role of the Resistance, the false interpretation of Iran's rational policies as expansionism, and Orientalist stereotyping have been the central axis of tensions. These misperceptions have led to the reinforcement of the Resistance and anti-Americanism discourse in Iran, the adoption of legal political decisions, the continuation of the cycle of hostility, and a reduction in the possibility of constructive dialogue. It is suggested that the United States takes a step toward reducing these misperceptions by reviewing its existing identity cultural, legal, and political assumptions about Iran and adopting a context driven approach based on an understanding of the "specific rationality" of Iran's foreign policy.